falloutfanonfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:The Emerging Era of Consent Forms and Private Fiefdoms
One of the main purposes of the wiki in general, is expand upon a shared setting. This emerging consent form culture is somewhat annoying. Going to play around with some hypothetical situations and see if this leads to some clarity on how people ought to behave. Author A has an article about a character named John Doe, and Author B has created an article about the settlement of Townsville. Author A adds the following line to their own article: and links Author B's article. This was done without prior collaboration, but it's harmless and inoffensive. Nobody should be making a federal case about this. Later, Author A reads a bit more about Townsville and decides to expand upon John Doe's story. . Now so long as Author B mentioned Townsville having a diner, this hardly needs a series of consent forms. No harm, no foul. But what if Author B didn't mention the diner? Now this is where people will need to talk. It could play out a few ways. Author A: Hey, Author B. It's really important to my character John Doe's backstory that he enjoys a good burger. Would it be okay to mention a diner in Townsville where he can get them? Author B: Sure thing, I'll add The Example Scenario Diner. But maybe they respond with something like: Author B: A diner wouldn't fit the theme or mood of Townsville. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Author B: According to my established Townsville lore, everyone in the settlement is vegan. Would John Doe enjoy a salad bar instead? Author B: According to my established Townsville lore, the town doesn't have any commercial businesses so a diner wouldn't fit. Have you looked at my article on Settlementburg? From there, Author A would need to come up with some alternatives. Because this is a relatively minor change or addition, there should be a good faith effort on the part of the two authors to come to some agreeable compromise. Some bad responses would include: Author B: (Eternal Silence) Author B: Absolutely not, I don't like you/your article/you and your article, I refuse to collaborate with you under any circumstances. Now there are things that Author B does not need to compromise on under any circumstances, dealing with dramatic changes or additions. For example, if Author A wanted John Doe's story to include: destroying Townsville in whole or in part, becoming the ruler of Townsville, having a life changing interaction with some named residents of Townsville. Author B would have the final word if those sorts of things could be done, and Author A would have to be prepared to their terms and restrictions. This isn't intended to be all-inclusive of any given scenario that has or could happen. Most of all I would encourage writers to talk to each other, whether in their talk pages or the Discord. Some people have had unpleasant interactions in the past, let's see about moving forward. While I do agree with the points raised, I feel that an author should have the ability to control the content of their article and what links to it; a right of refusal if they will. Going back to your hypothetical, I'm not saying that Author A should have to ask permission to add their comments/etc to or regarding Author B's article. However, Author B should also have the right to decide if they want it there at all. If not, Author B should be able to remove/modify the content in question (But obviously not make wholesale changes to other user's content). At the same time, an author should not try to "back door" their way into another's content. Going back to the prior example, if Author B removed Author A's comments from their article, Author A should not re-add them somewhere else. I am all for cooperative and collaborative world-building. However, I also feel that the best environment for such is when all parties can maintain control over their content.